No Doubt. Djokovic emerge just because Fed and Nadal are way past their primes. They can not compete physically anymore. Roger is aging, it is a natural process where he is not able to compete 5 sets is a slow surface against a pusher anymore. Nadal is just too injured, his knees won't hold a 5 set matches against Djoko.

Murray is just not good enough. No really talented youngsters. Djokovic is in a perfect time to win CYGS.

People has to accept this. If this Djoko were playing against Prime Fed and Prime Nadal, he would not have any chances except for AO.

The field was deeper when Fed started to rise and before this risen than it is now.

Djoko emerge = Safin + Hewitt + Roddick emerge at 2000 - 2002. The difference is that the field was deeper and there were still surface specialists since the courts were really diferent at that time. Safin and Hewitt were good enough of hard courts but at grass and clay there were specialist who despite being old or injured could play well there.

Djoko has no real opossition now that Fed is Old and Nadal is injured and the surfaces are just the same all over the year.

Don't you know there has never been a strong era in the history of tennis? Just like the turtles, it's weak eras all the way down.

Click to expand...

Really? take a look at the old ranking in past years

In 1990 you had 16 slam/eventual slam winners in the top 50 now we have 5 slam winners(granted we cannot be sure about eventual slam winners) and one of them has been sidelined most of the season. There is no depth in the second tier.

The field was deeper when Fed started to rise and before this risen than it is now.

Djoko emerge = Safin + Hewitt + Roddick emerge at 2000 - 2002. The difference is that the field was deeper and there were still surface specialists since the courts were really diferent at that time. Safin and Hewitt were good enough of hard courts but at grass and clay there were specialist who despite being old or injured could play well there.

Djoko has no real opossition now that Fed is Old and Nadal is injured and the surfaces are just the same all over the year.

Click to expand...

Hewit= no power no threat
Roddick=no brains no touch or feel
Safin= inconsistent, head case

Hewit= no power no threat
Roddick=no brains no touch or feel
Safin= inconsistent, head case

You call this strong lol

Click to expand...

They battled against a deeper field. There were Old Sampras, Old Ivanisevic, Old Rafter, Old Krajicek and Henmann who could play well in the fast grass prior to 2002. There were good clay court specialists although old or injured or inconsistent like Old Kafelnikov, Old Moya, Kuerten, Chela, Ferrero, Costa, Gaudio etc. Agassi was there too in all surfaces, and he was playing well at that time. And of course, they battled against their own generation who were youngster at that time Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Federer, Nalbandian, Hass, etc.

Djoko has nobody to battle against anymore. Old Fed who can only be a threat at Wimbledon if it is fast. Injured Nadal whose knees would only hold at clay and Murray who can only be a real obstacle at grass and fast hard courts.

No Doubt 2000 - 2002 has a much deeper field at Tier 1 and Tier 2 than today. The Djoker is winning the slams Hewitt, Safin, Roddick won at their time. Just look all the good player there were back at that time. Nowadays just three good players one is Old (Federer) and way past his prime; the other is Injured most of the time (Nadal) and the other is just not good enough even at his peak (Murray).

Peak Sampras, Peak Federer, Peak Nadal, Peak Safin and Peak Agassi; at least, could mop the floor with Peak Djoker at hard courts. At grass, a lot of players at their peak would mop the floor with Novak. At clay also a lot of player would defeat Novak (Peak Kuerten, Nadal, Peak Federer, Peak Agassi, etc).

Murray can't beat Nole on the big stage unless Nole lays a big egg like he did in the USO finals

Click to expand...

Lol...that's virtually the same as saying Murray can't beat Djokovic on the big stage unless he actually does which he did at the USO finals, no matter what size and consistency of egg Djokovic was trying to lay.

Ergo...Murray has proved that he can beat Djokovic on the big stage because he has done so. Now whether he can do it consistently is yet to be seen.

It's a completely unknowable question to answer. It's impossible to know how good players from the past would have been if they grew up in the environment of today -- we don't even know with any significant degree of confidence what the environment will be like once, say, Djokovic and Murray retire in 5-8 years. All one can do is appreciate what players do in the era they are in. Anything else is speculation.

Murray can't beat Nole on the big stage unless Nole lays a big egg like he did in the USO finals

Click to expand...

What the fck is a mard you retarded prck! Most of those so called mards were non Murray supporters.

Tired injured Murray still nearly beat peak fresh Djokovic if you want to play that stupid game.

What is wrong with so many of you negative fckers?

I can see so many of you have really sad lives and need to deride and mock people who are far more successful to make yourselves feel better and get the poison out.

So tell me what do you do for a living mate? Unemployed, shelf stacker, fast food worker, no money, spotty and ugly maybe. Must be something.
Sit behind your computer taking your frustrations out on people who can't defend themselves. Very brave of you you sad prck.

Feel free to email me and we can carry this on. I'd be glad to talk or meet you and tell you face to face what a sad failure you are over and over.

I think if you look at who the players are that consistently make the semis of the major tournaments, it does seem to always be the top 4 players, but I think that is more a case of a gulf in talent between them and the next 4 or 5 players.

I think with Nadal being out, it does weaken the competition and you can more or less select the winner from the top 3. Federer is obviously getting older (arent we all), but until he came up against an on-form Murray, he rarely broke sweat in any game. Similar to Murray really.

And some of the tennis the top 3 play is quite brilliant really, so I dont think its a weak era as such, I just think they are so much better than the rest, they make it look weak.

Yeah yeah yeah, he's good, with all the stats, the 2011 season and all that.

No Nadal, only Old Fed who used to stop him in majors...

I know he won majors when Nadal and Fed were around, but they are both past their primes now and for the next 10 majors there will be no real rival for him.

Murray has only recently has made a move and even now its obvious he cant keep up with him physically.

If he swipes the majors this year it's because of a perfect timing when a weak era has emerged.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't base Murray's chances on this last match, if that's what you're doing. Roger at his best would have a hard time beating Novak right now. In my opinion the Novak that showed up against Stan would own the h2h against a prime Federer. But I do agree this is a weak era, but then it was even weaker years ago when Roger was gathering up slams before the Spanish Winter.

Yeah yeah yeah, he's good, with all the stats, the 2011 season and all that.

No Nadal, only Old Fed who used to stop him in majors...

I know he won majors when Nadal and Fed were around, but they are both past their primes now and for the next 10 majors there will be no real rival for him.

Murray has only recently has made a move and even now its obvious he cant keep up with him physically.

If he swipes the majors this year it's because of a perfect timing when a weak era has emerged.

Click to expand...

Disagree, Fed is still a tough player to beat, his level of play is still very high and Murray has always been a terrific player and is that much more dangerous since his slam final mental block is gone.

We also don't know how much Nadal will be in the mix this year so too early to tell but he was playing great tennis in 2011 and 2012 (until FO) when Novak was facing him on the big stages.

The depth outside the big 4 is very lacking but as a trade-off you have a great top 4 (well great top 3 at the moment but I believe Nadal will return).

I wouldn't base Murray's chances on this last match, if that's what you're doing. Roger at his best would have a hard time beating Novak right now. In my opinion the Novak that showed up against Stan would own the h2h against a prime Federer. But I do agree this is a weak era, but then it was even weaker years ago when Roger was gathering up slams before the Spanish Winter.

Click to expand...

Dude, he doesn't own Fed even now, since the start of Novak's domination in 2011 he's 3-2 in slams against Fed and had to save 2 MPs in one of those wins, that's certainly not ownage against Fed who isn't as good as he was in his best years.

Also Stan was zoning but his best level isn't as potent as Fed's best level, jeez.

Disagree, Fed is still a tough player to beat, his level of play is still very high and Murray has always been a terrific player and is that much more dangerous since his slam final mental block is gone.

We also don't know how much Nadal will be in the mix this year so too early to tell but he was playing great tennis in 2011 and 2012 (until FO) when Novak was facing him on the big stages.

The depth outside the big 4 is very lacking but as a trade-off you have a great top 4 (well great top 3 at the moment but I believe Nadal will return).

Dude, he doesn't own Fed even now, since the start of Novak's domination in 2011 he's 3-2 in slams against Fed and had to save 2 MPs in one of those wins, that's certainly not ownage against Fed who isn't as good as he was in his best years.

Also Stan was zoning but his best level isn't as potent as Fed's best level, jeez.

Click to expand...

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about their overall H2H.

My point was that since the start of the best period of his career (2011+) Novak hasn't been able to dominate 29-31 year old Fed on the biggest stages (slams), he's gone 3-2 against him in slams with one win being a very narrow one.

If he couldn't dominate a past his prime Fed (if you agree that 29-31 year old Fed is/was past his prime) by what logic would he dominate (or own the H2H) best version of Fed (say 2004-2007)? Now he might narrowly lead the H2H (though I personally don't believe it) but it would be close either way.

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

Click to expand...

Prime Federer beat Djokovic three straight times at the U.S. Open for the loss of just one set. After his level dropped, he still had match points in his two U.S. Open losses to Djokovic. I've no doubt that at the U.S. Open, prime Federer would beat prime Djokovic more often than not.

Way past his prime Federer beat Djokovic at Wimbledon just last year. I've no doubt that prime Federer would beat prime Djokovic at Wimbledon more often than not, possibly never losing to him.

A not-quite-as-far-past-his-prime Federer beat Djokovic at the French in 2011. This would probably be a really good match-up if they were both at their respective peaks at the same time. I think they're both of a similar level on clay and their games match up well. I imagine they'd split the meetings about 50-50.

So the only slam where Djokovic would beat prime Federer "on the average" would be the Australian Open, where he is king.

I love that Murray suddenly "just isn't good enough" when about 40% of this board predicted that he'd win the AO.

Click to expand...

We found out Murray's fitness is questionable. Nadal in 2009 and Djokovic in 2012 did what he couldn't do yesterday. Win the AO after a long SF. Murray's stamina and endurance is a big question mark. If he is going to be exhausted after playing 5 setters in the sf, then he will struggle to win like Djokovic does.... ADV Djokovic.

Problem is not the top 4. Top 4 are as good now as in any other generation. The problem is the depth of field. At this point the top 4 might as well start every slam from the Semis. Fed is getting older so he’s more at risk but you get the point. Back in the 90s you could actually get some rough first round matches and get booted out early. Top 10 could be all Slam winners. Top 20 were all dangerous. More aggressive play style and faster courts meant a lot more unpredictable matches. The slower the court, the more predictable the match is. It’s like MMA. Heavyweights will always be more unpredictable due to their power. Even a total mismatch could end in one lucky shot. The lighter weight you are the less likely one lucky shot will end a fight so the best fighter usually always wins. Some people like this, for me, I find it boring and uninteresting. I like excitement to my sport, not a math formula where the match is so predictable it’s not even worth playing.

After his level dropped, he still had match points in his two U.S. Open losses to Djokovic.

Click to expand...

Djokovic played with injured shoulder in that match.

Way past his prime Federer beat Djokovic at Wimbledon just last year.

Click to expand...

Djokovic's grandfather died in April last year. It's likely that Novak was still grieving during the 2012 Wimbledon.

A not-quite-as-far-past-his-prime Federer beat Djokovic at the French in 2011.

Click to expand...

Djokovic received walkover into the semifinal (Fognini), which means he did not play 5 days after his match in the 4th round. It's sensible to say that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played against Federer.

Djokovic's grandfather died in April last year. It's likely that Novak was still grieving during the 2012 Wimbledon.

Djokovic received walkover into the semifinal (Fognini), which means he did not play 5 days after his match in the 4th round. It's sensible to say that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played against Federer.

Click to expand...

OMG I've never heard such a load of crapexcuses in my life. Maybe we should just asterisk every loss Djoker has ever had!

Djokovic received walkover into the semifinal (Fognini), which means he did not play 5 days after his match in the 4th round. It's sensible to say that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played against Federer.

I don't have to. He lost fair and square. This is just sour grapes on your part. Maybe we should go through every win he's ever had and analyze which opponents were injured or who was absent, like in Toronto last summer.